The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case against a Normal man to determine the constitutionality of Illinois’ rules mandating that sex offenders report all their internet activity to authorities. Full Article
Related posts
-
IL: How do scores of Chicagoans arrested for sex crimes stay off the sex offender registry once convicted?
Source: nbcchicago.com 10/22/24 When John heard the news on a recent Friday, it hit him hard:... -
IN: Interesting Stay Dispute in Seventh Circuit Minors’-Access-to-Porn Case
Source: reason.com 8/20/24 From Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Rokita, decided Friday by Judges Frank Easterbrook... -
IL: New Illinois law clarifies rules on AI-generated child pornography
Source: myjournalcourier.com 8/13/24 Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed into law legislation clarifying that Illinois’ existing child...
When they started going after juveniles many years ago, I remember thinking ” ahh, their agenda is to get ’em while their young”. To all those unsuspecting parents who were programmed to think the sex offender laws were passed to help keep their families safe- you were duped.
The devil casts a wide net.
Another cert to SCOTUS about another draconian RC restriction. I know many states, including mine, request and hold this type of information (which is bad enough), but to publish it? That’s a whole different matter.
SCOTUS sure is getting a boatload of RC cert requests, aren’t they? Good! In some way, they are going to have to address this cancer. In all fairness to SCOTUS, they never said anything about restrictions being okay. They only said registries, and public dissemination of them, are constitutional. It’s the legislative bodies across the country who have run ape-sh*t crazy with restrictions.
That these cases are finally rising to the top is a wonderful thing. SCOTUS cannot ignore this issue forever. IMHO, this can onlyl help tip SCOTUS towards accepting Snyder, which I think they will anyway given the CVSG (http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/glossary-of-legal-terms/). Hopefully SCOTUS uses Snyder to cast a wider net and catches a whole bunch of these ridiculous laws and kills them…though I don’t foresee their doing so.
I continue to pray for SCOTUS and other courts to have the wisdom and courage to rule based on facts and truths, not fears and suppositions.
–AJ
The IL Supreme Court is also taking up the People v. Pepitone case in which an IL appellate court found the statewide park restrictions to be unconstitutional:
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2017/3rdDistrict/3140627.pdf
Briefs in the case are due in the next 2 months.
If there is an unfavorable opinion then this park restrictions case could also be heading to SCOTUS.
-Scott
I’m confused: when entities such as Facebook ban registered citizens from using their site and actively hunt them down and delete their accounts, why is this important? The government says it’s ok to use but they don’t let us use it
This will be the second time SCOTUS has been asked this question. They refused to take cert in Doe v. Shurtleff. Wonder if they will refuse this one as well.
@NEW PERSON
“Factor 2 lists the basis for the scheme to be deemed regulatory. The SCOTUS lists specifically WHAT NOT TO DO!”
That is incorrect. SCOTUS lists items that weren’t done that would make them more likely to consider it punitive or resembling the conditions of parole/probation. They did not say those things would make it so on any individual or even cumulative basis. That was an opinion written by one Justice no matter how many others agreed and can’t be taken as setting an agreed on barrier for legal battles, only consideration.
I am glad they listed those things for future battles, but I think you are putting too much weight on them setting some type of precedent. I will agree that they are important factors to be focused on thanks to their inclusion in the opinion.